Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1081 of 1309 (742066)
11-16-2014 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1077 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:58 PM


Question Faith
Again; how is saying "You can buy anything but a wedding cake" different than saying "You can buy anything in the store except at the white counter" or "You can ride anywhere on the bus as long as you don't sit in the front with the white folk" or "You can drink the water but not from the White faucet" or "No Jews need apply" ot "Help wanted. no Irish need apply" or "You can use the outhouse but not the indoor toilet" ?
How does a cake validate a marriage?
Any answers Faith?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1083 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:20 PM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1082 of 1309 (742067)
11-16-2014 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1078 by PaulK
11-16-2014 2:59 PM


Re: Second Reminder
I can only answer for Christians asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Anything that forces a person to act against their conscience is unconstitutional. I don't know about the other situations but I do know about this one.
This is not like Woolworth's being able to open counter seats to blacks. This one is not going to yield because it is a matter of what the Bible says.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1078 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 2:59 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1084 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1083 of 1309 (742068)
11-16-2014 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1081 by jar
11-16-2014 3:13 PM


Re: Question Faith
You should be subject to admin discipline by now for harassment. You've been answered sufficiently many times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 3:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1085 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 3:34 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1084 of 1309 (742070)
11-16-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1082 by Faith
11-16-2014 3:14 PM


Re: Second Reminder
quote:
I can only answer for Christians asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
That's oddly specific - and also odd that you suddenly refuse to talk about situations you haven't investigated.
quote:
Anything that forces a person to act against their conscience is unconstitutional
Is it ? Can you point to the clause in the Constitution saying so ? And are you really claiming that there are no other situations where Public Accommodations law "forces" people to act against their conscience ?
quote:
This one is not going to yield because it is a matter of what the Bible says.
A matter of going against what the Bible says.
Edited by PaulK, : Adding a response to Faith's addition
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1082 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1087 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:44 PM PaulK has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1085 of 1309 (742071)
11-16-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1083 by Faith
11-16-2014 3:20 PM


Re: Question Faith
Sorry Faith but that is simply not true and any honest person would agree that you have not answered the questions asked.
Faith writes:
Anything that forces a person to act against their conscience is unconstitutional.
Maybe in Faith's New Think but not in reality.
Businesses cannot discriminate.
If the bakers were not a business and did not charge for cakes then they might have a case; but they were a business and did charge for their services.
Again; how is saying "You can buy anything but a wedding cake" different than saying "You can buy anything in the store except at the white counter" or "You can ride anywhere on the bus as long as you don't sit in the front with the white folk" or "You can drink the water but not from the White faucet" or "No Jews need apply" or "Help wanted. no Irish need apply" or "You can use the outhouse but not the indoor toilet" ?
How does a cake validate a marriage?
Any answers Faith?
Edited by jar, : ot ----> or
Edited by jar, : slorry ----> sorry

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1083 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:20 PM Faith has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1086 of 1309 (742072)
11-16-2014 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1067 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:45 PM


Re: While you are in actually answering mode ...
It's a matter of personal conscience, as you well know, their having a right to their conscience. Not YOUR conscience, THEIR conscience.
People have personal consciences; companies do not. Of course, now legal considerations will come into play, especially regarding what kind of company they had (ie, a sole proprietorship in contrast with a corporation).
So if their personal conscience were so important to them, why didn't they just hire or contract in a Shabbos goy to do that work for them? It's a centuries-old tradition. Even The King had served in that capacity.
But I guess the bottom line would be: Why would they want to conduct a business that would require them to violate their deeply-held religious convictions by not allowing them to discriminate against any group? If they truly felt so strongly about their religious convictions, they would never have wanted to open that business in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1067 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1088 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:45 PM dwise1 has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1087 of 1309 (742073)
11-16-2014 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1084 by PaulK
11-16-2014 3:27 PM


You Re: Second Reminder
You do not get to define another person's conscience or understanding of the Bible./

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1084 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 3:27 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1089 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 3:49 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1088 of 1309 (742074)
11-16-2014 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1086 by dwise1
11-16-2014 3:36 PM


Re: While you are in actually answering mode ...
The business preexisted this outrageous law that violates their freedom of religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1086 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2014 3:36 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1093 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2014 4:42 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1089 of 1309 (742075)
11-16-2014 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1087 by Faith
11-16-2014 3:44 PM


Re: You Re: Second Reminder
Oh, so the Bible's just subjective now ?
I think the fact that the only really relevant verse you've quoted says in no uncertain terms that you should follow secular law is pretty decisive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1087 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1090 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:54 PM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1090 of 1309 (742076)
11-16-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1089 by PaulK
11-16-2014 3:49 PM


Re: You Re: Second Reminder
Of course not, what nonsense. People are allowed to be wrong too as long as they are genuinely sincere. The test would be if they give in when threatened with legal action. The verse I quoted was of Peter and company saying they should obey God and not men, and I disputed the misinterpretation of the verse that says to obey the magistrates, because that's only if they don't contradict God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1089 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 3:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1091 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2014 4:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2014 11:08 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1091 of 1309 (742077)
11-16-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1090 by Faith
11-16-2014 3:54 PM


Re: You Re: Second Reminder
quote:
Of course not, what nonsense. People are allowed to be wrong too as long as they are genuinely sincere
So, if we can find an example of segregationists who didn't give in when threatened with legal action you would support their stand, despite believing them to be mistaken (or worse) ?
quote:
The verse I quoted was of Peter and company saying they should obey God and not men, and I disputed the misinterpretation of the verse that says to obey the magistrates, because that's only if they don't contradict God.
Can you remind me of the first verse you mention ? And you seem to have forgotten to show that selling a cake is contrary to God's will.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1090 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1092 of 1309 (742078)
11-16-2014 4:20 PM


Jefferson on taxation is a similar principle
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson HERE
To compel a person to do anything to propagate ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1094 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 4:55 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1093 of 1309 (742080)
11-16-2014 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1088 by Faith
11-16-2014 3:45 PM


Re: While you are in actually answering mode ...
The business preexisted this outrageous law that violates their freedom of religion.
Actually they opened in the summer of 2007, while the State-wide law passed in the spring of 2007 and came into effect early 2008. Also, they set up in Portland, which had specific ordinance going back to the 1990s prohibiting this behaviour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1088 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 3:45 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1094 of 1309 (742081)
11-16-2014 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1092 by Faith
11-16-2014 4:20 PM


Re: Jefferson on taxation is a similar principle
LOL
We are no longer living in the 18th and 19th Century nor is it legal to own slaves anymore.
AbE:
You may find laws abhorrent and even tyrannical but they are still the Laws of the Land and you must obey them or suffer the consequences.
An Business do not have the right to discriminate.
If the folk were not a business selling cakes then they might have a leg to stand on. If they are selling cakes, even out of their house (which would likely be simply adding additional criminal activities), they still could not refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.
And yet again, how does a cake validate a marriage?
How is saying "You can buy anything but a wedding cake" different than saying "You can buy anything in the store except at the white counter" or "You can ride anywhere on the bus as long as you don't sit in the front with the white folk" or "You can drink the water but not from the White faucet" or "No Jews need apply" or "Help wanted. no Irish need apply" or "You can use the outhouse but not the indoor toilet" ?
Edited by jar, : see AbE:
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1092 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 4:20 PM Faith has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1095 of 1309 (742082)
11-16-2014 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1076 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:58 PM


I am pretty sure we showed clearly that Mr. Coston isn't qualified to say much about this subject. He has absolutely no historical training and he is involved with organizations whose sole purpose is to put James and his son Charles on a pedestal. He is not a source anyone should put any faith in.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1076 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:58 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024